Purpose: On the grounds of comprehensive assessment of the 2 groups of patients after intramedullary tumors surgery compare a neurological outcome in the early postoperative period. The first group was operated with intraoperative monitoring and the second group was operated before the introduction of neurophysiological control. During the monitoring try to identify predictors of successful outcome for patients after intramedullary tumors surgery. The study included 48 patients with intramedullary tumors of cervical and thoracic localization. Complex neurological examination was performed before surgery and 2 weeks after surgery and included: as-sessment of neurological status on McCormick Scale, functional outcome rated on SCIM III Scale, the total mobility was evaluated on Rivermid Index mobility and paresis we rated on the ASIA Motor Score scale. The study group consisted of 26 patients operated with intraoperative monitoring and control group consisted of 22 patients operated before the introduction of intraoperative monitoring in neurosurgical practice. The trial comprised patients with a functional status I-III rated on McCormick Scale. After assessing the 2 groups according the SCIM III scale it was found out the persistence of the level in the study group (p=0,044) and a decrease of the final score in the control group. Comparing the activity level on a Rivermid scale we identified improvement in the study group (р=0,034) and retention of activity in the control group. We detected that in the study group where we used intraoperative monitoring, the level of paresis accord-ing to ASIA Motor Score preserve at the preoperative level, and the growth of paresis level in the control group (p<0,05). Preservation of MEP amplitude > 50% at the end of the operation is a predictor of saving muscle strength at the preoperative level. Patients, who underwent surgery with the use of intraoperative monitoring are more active and indepen-dent from outside help in the early postoperative period.
intramedullary spinal cord tumors, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, somatosensory evoked potentials, motor evoked potentials
1. Belova N.A. Neyroreabilitatsiya: rukovodstvo dlya vrachey. M.: Antidor, 2000. S. 52-54.
2. Gnezditskiy V.V., Korepina O.S. Atlas po vyzvannym potentsialam mozga. Ivanovo: Izd. po-ligr. Kompleks «PresSto», 2011.
3. Evzikov G.Yu. Khirurgicheskoe lechenie spinal´nykh vnutrimozgovykh opukholey: Dis. …dokt. med.nauk. M., 2002.
4. Kushel´ Yu.V. Khirurgiya intramedullyarnykh opukholey: analiz rezul´tatov, faktorov riska i oslozhneniy: Dis. …dokt. med.nauk. M., 2007.
5. Kushel´ Yu.V. Intramedullyarnye opukholi spinnogo mozga. Chast´ I. (epidemiologiya, diagno-stika, printsipy lecheniya). Neyrokhirurgiya. 2008. № 3. S. 10.
6. Sudakov K.V. Kurs normal´noy fiziologii na osnove teorii funktsional´nykh sistem. Seche-novskiy vestnik. 2013. №3. S. 30-35.
7. The Catz-Itzkovich SCIM: a revised version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure / Catz A., Itz-kovich M., Steinberg F., Philo O., [et al.]. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2001. V. 23, №6. R. 263-268.
8. Deletis V., Francesco Sala: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: A review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2008. V. 119. P. 248-264.
9. Deletis V., Isgum V., Amassian V.E. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor evoked po-tentials in anesthetized humans. Part 1. Recovery time of corticospinal tract direct waves elicited by pairs of transcranial electrical stimuli. Clin.Neurophysiol. 2001. V. 112. P. 438-444.
10. Dong C., MacDonald D., Janusz M. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm surgery. Ann.Thorac.Surg. 2002. V. 74. P. 1873-1876.
11. Fekete C., Eriks-Hoogland I., Baumberger M., Catz A., Itzkovich M., Luthi H., Post MWM, E von Elm, A Wyss and MWG Brinkhof. Development and validation of a self-report version of the Spinal Cord In-dependence Measure (SCIM III)// Spinal Cord (2013) 51, 40-47 & 2013 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved 1362-4393/13.
12. Kothbauer K. Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Spinal Cord Surgery. Touch Brief-ings, 2008. P. 56-58.
13. MacDonald D. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update. J of Clin. Monit and Comp. 2006. V. 20. P. 347-377.
14. MacDonald D., Skinner S., Shils J., Yingling C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring - A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2013. V. 7. P. 8-23.
15. McCormick P.C., Torres R., Post K.D. Intramedullary ependymoma of the spinal cord. J. Neurosurg. 1990. V. 72. P. 525-532.
16. Moller A. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Springer, Third Edition, 2011. P. 283-287.
17. Evidence-based guideline update: Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and tran-scranial electrical motor evoked potentials. In: Neurology guidelines, special addition / Nuwer M.R., Emerson R.G., Galloway G. [et al.], 2012. P. 585-589.
18. Intraoperative motor evoked potentials monitoring improves outcome after surgery of intramedullary spinal cord tumor: a historical control study in 50 patients/ Sala F., Palandri G., Basso E. [et al.]. Neurosurgery. 2006. V. 58. P. 1129-1143.
19. Shutter M., Eggspuehler A., Grob D. The validity of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) in surgery of 109 spine and spinal cord tumors. Eur Spine J. 2007. V. 16. P. S197-S208.
20. Schwartz D., Sestokas A., Dormans J., Drummond D., et al. Transcranial electric motor evoked poten-tial monitoring during spine surgery: is it safe?. Spine. 2011. 36(13). P. 1046-1049.
21. Scientific Spine. URL: http://www.scientificspine.com/spine-scores/
22. Tamaki T., Kubota S. History of the development of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. J. Eur. Spine. 2007. Suppl 2. P.140-146.
